C.MALLEM KONDAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. Mallem Kondaiah, the petitioner in these three cases, retired from service as a Prohibition and Excise Inspector in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 28.02.2017. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings after his retirement. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). O.A.No.2912 of 2017 was filed by him challenging the Charge Memo dated 21.06.2017 issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad, in Enquiry Case No.113 of 2013. O.A.No.3046 of 2017 was filed by him challenging the Charge Memo dated 15.09.2017 issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad, in Enquiry Case No.137 of 2013. O.A.No.3483 of 2017 was filed by him assailing the Charge Memo dated 27.11.2017 issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad, in Enquiry Case No.169 of 2013. The common ground of challenge in all three O.As. was that initiation of such disciplinary proceedings after his retirement was without jurisdiction, being in violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 1980'). He sought a consequential direction in all three O.As. to release his full pension and other retirement benefits.

(2.) By common order dated 18.06.2018, the Tribunal opined that Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1980 would have no application to cases before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and dismissed the O.As. Hence, these writ petitions - W.P.No.25587 of 2018 calls in question the said common order in so far as it relates to O.A.No.2912 of 2017 while W.P.No.26311 of 2018 relates to O.A.No.3046 of 2017 and W.P.No.26381 of 2018 relates to O.A.No.3483 of 2017.

(3.) Heard Sri P.Suresh Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherla Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Services, State of Andhra Pradesh, for the respondents.